Wednesday, January 23, 2008

John Manley: Unmoved By Facts

A nifty post at The Scott Ross which argues that the Manley Report is a rehash of his earlier article in Policy Options, "Afghanistan: Meeting the Development Challenge". Since the article was published in October of '07, before he was chosen to lead Stephen Harper's panel, Ross suggests that the panel itself was an empty pantomime, and the other panellists sock-puppets meant to function as a chorus to John Manley's pronouncements.

Read the whole thing at the link above, but here's a couple of passages that clearly imply a degree of self-plagiarism on Manley's part.

From the report:

Whenever we asked Afghans what they thought ISAF or Canada should do, there was never any hesitation: “We want you to stay; we need you to stay.” Without the presence of the international security forces, they said, chaos would surely ensue.From "Policy Options":

Whenever we asked Afghans what they thought ISAF or Canada should do, they did not hesitate to say that we must stay. Without the presence of the international forces, chaos would surely ensue.

So Canadian tax-payers forked out how much for this cut-and-paste job?

12 comments:

You know, after sifting through miles of Liberal spin yesterday, I watched the CBC evening news expecting them to trash the report with equanimity. Instead they proceeded to tell me it was a damning report of the incompetence of the federal conservative government! Imagine my surprise when the CBC had found an even newer angle than the Liberal blogosphere had.

John Manley has since been available for comment and interview since the report was released, and has been anything but a "sock-puppet" in his recommendations, criticism, and caveats as to mission extension.

As for self-plagiarism, I don't see a problem with reiterating the salient points from his previous reports.

Another thing - I just watched a report by Barbara Starr, CNN's correspondent that deals mainly with the Pentagon - she reports that the Pentagon is in the process of considering sending a few hundred troops into Pakistan to help train the Pakistani forces on security....sound familiar?

Isn't this in essence what Dion was suggesting - NATO working with Pakistan forces?

Actually, in an academic setting you certainly canyou can. See for example:

http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/

Anon 3:44 (Maybe Paul S?). That was part of what Dion was suggesting. It also sounds like he was suggesting that NATO troops go over the border for example to chase fleeing Taliban, which I believe is something the Americans can already do. Which makes the whole kerfuffle over Dion's remarks seem pretty silly.

RA,

Manley's comments are a whole lot of frilliness to cover up the fact he's advocating the status quo.

Manley's comments are a whole lot of frilliness to cover up the fact he's advocating the status quo.

I just find it odd that the media, and in particular the media which often is cited as being "liberal", or as others like to call them "MSM", are saying the report is anything BUT the status quo. Where to begin, where to begin... Oh! How about the Toronto Star?

Along with encouraging a broader national debate, Manley's layered report will put pressure on Harper as well as Stéphane Dion to build a consensus rather than use Afghanistan as a wedge political issue. It implies that the Prime Minister must be more forthright about the challenges as well as more insistent that allies share the deadly risks. It suggests that the Liberal party Manley once hoped to lead should offer a more sophisticated, nuanced and realistic policy alternative than an arbitrary withdrawal that might wreck NATO as well as Canada's reputation.

Manley also had tough words for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, saying he must "step up" and make the mission a top priority, and be supported by a special cabinet committee and full-time task force to co-ordinate Canada's efforts.

But more importantly, Harper should personally oversee diplomatic efforts to put pressure on NATO, he said.

Actually, without having been there, Manleys report seems to tell it like it is. Leaving would be a mess but staying requires more equipment and help from NATO. How satisfying that a Liberal deals with something in a way that actually makes sense. Way to go, John Manley.

BCL said:="Actually, in an academic setting you certainly canyou can. See for example:"=

LOL BCL. The idea of self-plagiarism is oxymoronic.

="Anon 3:44 (Maybe Paul S?). That was part of what Dion was suggesting. It also sounds like he was suggesting that NATO troops go over the border for example to chase fleeing Taliban, which I believe is something the Americans can already do. Which makes the whole kerfuffle over Dion's remarks seem pretty silly."=

Wasn't my post, but Dion wants to chase fleeing Taliban into Pakistan to do what? Give them little Canadian flags?

Not only are Dion's remarks silly, so is the man.

="Manley's comments are a whole lot of frilliness to cover up the fact he's advocating the status quo."=

The status quo is often the best course of action.

I have yet to hear an intelligent or viable alternative to the Afghan mission so I would agree in this case: stick with the status quo.

"Honest to gawd, if I had been sent on a fact finding mission for three months and produced such a piece of fluff I would have been torn to shreds. When I first read it I thought I had copied an executive summary and had missed the full document."

It's very illustrative that the two parties that prattle on the most about international human rights and the sanctity of the UN are the first to fold up the tent and flip the bird at the UN, NATO and especially the Afghan people. Very illustrative indeed.